„Did Janice punch you in the face?“ would be the guiding question; There are too many variables in the question for a simple and reliable answer. This is a relatively simple question, but the same problem can occur in much more complicated circumstances, with each variable having to be treated separately. Given the example given, the correct course of action would be to ask the witness, „Did Janice do something to you,“ followed by separate founding questions for each subsequent variable. „Where did Janice hit you?“ and „What did Janice hit you with?“ would be viable. In this case, the witness may not consider the difference between a closed fist and a large stone to be important, although it may in fact have profound legal implications. Key questions can also be used to create perceptions by not allowing a witness to qualify their answer. For example, in the above exchange, the witness may want to testify that the weapon was stolen from the accused prior to the murder, but since this question was not asked, the witness could not give this precise answer, which left some perceptions in the mind of a jury. Anyone who has ever watched crime television or a police procedural drama knows the concept of a central issue, but – compared to dramatization – the reality is much more complicated. Often, orientation questions are used by organizations to convince customers to make a specific decision.
For example, if you want clients to purchase an insurance plan, you can ask a key question such as „When would you like to enroll in our insurance plan?“ But what is a „suggestive“ question? Section 611(c) of the Federal Rules of Evidence deals with policy issues and is also the basis for government rules on the use of guidance questions.6 Paragraph 611(c) provides that orientation questions are generally not permitted in direct examination, except to develop the testimony of a witness.7 However, this rule and its notes do not define policy questions and do not address: if closed-ended questions are inherently suggestive.8 As the term implies, a guiding question is a question that leads a witness to an answer by proposing the answer or replacing the words of the lawyer asking the question with the words of the witness. Many key questions require „yes“ or „no“ answers. But not all questions that require a „yes“ or „no“ answer are guiding questions (just as not all key questions require a „yes“ or „no“ answer). (There is an exception to this rule: the court may allow you to ask your own policy questions if the court finds that the witness is „hostile“ to you. But that will have to be the subject of a separate blog post.) There are other nuances. There was an assistant prosecutor in Philadelphia who complained when someone dismissed one of his questions as suggestive. „Your honor,“ she breathed. „A question that begins with `who`, `what`, `where`, `how` or `why` cannot, by definition, be suggestive.
This happened after she asked a police officer something like, „Where did you find the five red bags of crack? “ while the officer had said nothing about five red bags of crack cocaine. In addition to assumptions, policy questions may take the form of related statements such as „What is your opinion of John Cross the murderer?“ or seek approval if the question requires the respondent to agree with it. Key issues can also lead to a forced election where neither option fits, but feels compelled to choose one. Tag questions are another type of guiding question where the question contains a directive that implies a specific desired answer that is marked at the end. A lawyer might say, „You wouldn`t do a physical exam like that, doctor, would you?“ Leading questions can also be coercive and force a respondent to give an answer that may not be appropriate. A guiding question usually tends towards prejudices and established assumptions and consists of specific information that the person or organization (interrogator) wants to confirm. In law, this type of question is commonly referred to as suggestive questioning. According to the rules of evidence, you generally only need to use non-leading questions when questioning your own witness.
The idea is that it would be unfair to allow you to testify for a friendly witness – a witness you have called – by indicating the desired answers through guiding questions. „You`ve never seen man before, have you?“ „You were upset, weren`t you?“ „You went to the store, right?“ During cross-examination, lawyers usually use leading questions to get witnesses to give answers. Key questions can also be used by a lawyer to create perceptions by not allowing a witness to qualify their answer. By limiting a witness to certain answers, a lawyer may leave certain perceptions in the jury`s mind in his or her favor. When a lawyer uses intelligent language and precise details when questioning witnesses to give them the desired answer, it is called a guiding question. As an example, consider the following hypothetical exchange in the courtroom: A hypothesis-based guiding question is a question that conveys a preconceived notion and is formulated as such. In other words, the whole issue stems from the interrogator`s assumption about the customer`s actions or perception. This lack of clarity makes it particularly important that practitioners understand the problem well enough to address it at the level of the trial court at the present time in order to achieve the desired result. To help practitioners navigate closed-ended questions, this article will cover the general rule of evidence regarding policy questions, the definitions needed, the treaties and cases most commonly used to answer this question, and the reasons for the ongoing confusion surrounding this topic. A guiding question does exactly what it says: it „leads“ respondents to the answer they want them to answer.
For example, if a company wants a potential customer to sign a contract, a question might be, „When do you want to start?“ This question does not ask them if they want to start, but asks them to indicate when they will start.
